The Perm scholarly societies, with the participation of the zemstvo, undertook extensive work for the 1896 exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, bearing the general title: "A Survey of the Perm Region." Materials were collected comprising more than 200 sheets; the entire publication is intended to comprise eight volumes. As is customary, it was not completed in time for the exhibition, and so far only the first volume has been published, containing an essay on the handicraft industry of the province [174]. This "Essay" presents outstanding interest by virtue of the novelty, richness, and completeness of the material upon which it rests. The material was collected by means of a special handicraft census, conducted at zemstvo expense in 1894/95, and this census was conducted on a household basis, with each householder being questioned individually. Information was gathered by zemstvo chiefs. The program of household investigation was very extensive, encompassing both the personal composition of the families of kustar-proprietors and wage labor employed by kustars, agriculture, information on the procurement of raw materials, techniques of production, the distribution of work by months of the year, the sale of products, the time of origin of establishments, and the indebtedness of kustars. As far as we are aware, such rich information is being published in our literature scarcely for the first time. But to whom much is given, of him much shall be required. The richness of the material gives us the right to present to the researchers the demand for thorough elaboration of this material, and to these demands the "Essay" satisfies us far from completely. Both in the tabular data and in the method of grouping and processing them there are many gaps, which the author has had to fill in part by extracting from the book and calculating the corresponding data.

We intend to acquaint readers with the material collected by the census, with the methods of its processing, with the conclusions that follow from the data regarding the economic reality of our "handicraft industries." We emphasize the words: "economic reality," because we pose the question only concerning what exists in reality, and why this reality is precisely as it is, and not otherwise. As for extending the conclusions drawn from data about Perm province to all "our handicraft industries" in general, the reader will be convinced from what follows of the legitimacy of such extension, because in Perm province the types of "kustarnichestvo" are extraordinarily diverse and embrace all possible types of it, about which anything has ever been reported in the literature on handicraft industries.

We urgently request only that the reader—as strictly as possible—distinguish between two aspects of the exposition that follows: the study and processing of factual data, on the one hand, and the evaluation of the Narodnist views of the authors of the "Essay," on the other.

## I. General Data

The handicraft census of 1894/95 embraced in all districts of the province 8,991 families of kustars (not counting families of wage workers), i.e., approximately 72% of the total number of Perm kustars, as the researchers believe, counting another 3,484 families according to other data. The basic subdivision of kustars by type, adopted in the "Essay," consists in distinguishing two groups of kustars (in the tables, groups are denoted by Roman numerals I and II), namely those having agricultural economy (I) and those not having it (II); then three subgroups of each group (Arabic numerals: 1, 2, 3), namely: 1) kustars working for free sale; 2) kustars working for customer-consumers, and 3) kustars working for customer-merchants. In the latter two subgroups, raw materials are predominantly supplied to the kustar by the customer. Let us dwell somewhat on this grouping. The division of kustars into agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists is, of course, entirely sound and necessary. The abundance of landless kustars in Perm province, often concentrated in factory settlements, obliged the authors to conduct this grouping systematically and incorporate it into the tables. We learn thereby that 1/3 of the total number of kustars (in 8,991 establishments 19,970 family and wage workers), namely 6,638 persons, belong to those without agricultural economy [175]. Already from this it is evident that there is an inaccuracy in the usual assumptions and assertions concerning the connection of handicraft industry with agriculture as a general phenomenon—a connection sometimes even elevated to a peculiarity of Russia. If we exclude from the number of "kustars" those incorrectly classified as rural (and urban) craftsmen, then of the remaining 5,566 families—the landless number 2,268, i.e., more than 2/5 of the total number of those working for the market. Unfortunately, this fundamental grouping is not maintained consistently in the "Essay" either. First, it is presented only for kustar-proprietors; regarding wage workers there are no such data. This gap results from the fact that the handicraft census altogether omitted wage workers and their families, registering only establishments, only proprietors. In the "Essay" the expression "families engaged in handicraft industries" is used imprecisely instead of these words, because families sending out wage workers to kustars are, of course, no less "engaged in handicraft industries" than families hiring workers. The absence of household data on families of wage workers (numbering 1/4 of the total number of workers)—this is an important gap in the census. This gap is highly characteristic of the Narodniks, who suddenly take the standpoint of the small producer and leave wage labor in the shadows. Below we shall encounter more than once gaps in information on wage workers, and for now we shall confine ourselves to remarking that although the absence of data on families of wage workers is a common phenomenon in the literature on handicraft industries, there are exceptions. In the works of Moscow zemstvo statistics one sometimes encounters data systematically collected on families of hired workers; even more such data are found in the well-known investigation of Messrs. Kharizomenov and Prugavin: "The Industries of Vladimir Province," where there are household censuses registering families of wage workers on a par with families of proprietors. Second, by including in the number of kustars a mass of landless industrialists, the researchers naturally undermined the basis of the usual, entirely incorrect practice—excluding urban industrialists from the number of "kustars." And indeed we see that in the handicraft census of 1894/95, one city, Kungur, entered (p. 33 of tables), but only one. There are no clarifications in the "Essay," and it remains unknown why only one city entered the census and precisely this one—whether by chance or for some reason. This produces considerable confusion, greatly damaging the general data. On the whole, the handicraft census repeats, therefore, the usual Narodnist error of separating the village ("kustar") and the city, although a known industrial district frequently embraces both city and surrounding settlements. It is long past time to discard this separation, based on prejudice and on the exaggeration of obsolete estate barriers.

We have already mentioned several times craftsmen, rural and urban, sometimes distinguishing them from kustars, sometimes including them in their number. This is because these fluctuations are characteristic of all the literature on "handicraft" industries, proving the inadequacy of such a term as "kustar" for scientific investigation. The generally accepted view is that kustars should include only those working for the market, only commodity producers, but in reality it is difficult to find any investigation of handicraft industries in which craftsmen—i.e., those working for customer-consumers (the 2nd subgroup, according to the "Essay")—do not appear among the kustars. Both in the "Proceedings of the Commission for the Investigation of Handicraft Industry" and in the "Industries of Moscow Province" you will encounter craftsmen among the "kustars." We consider it pointless to dispute the meaning of the word "kustar," because, as we shall see below, there is no form of industry (except perhaps machine manufacture) that is not included under this traditional term, which is absolutely useless for scientific investigation. It is indisputable that one must strictly distinguish commodity producers working for the market (1st subgroup) from craftsmen working for consumers (2nd subgroup), because these forms of industry represent entirely heterogeneous types in terms of their socio-economic significance. The attempts of the "Essay" to smooth over these differences are quite unfortunate (cf. p. 13, 177); it was much more correctly remarked in another zemstvo-statistical publication on Perm kustars that "craftsmen have very few points of contact with the domain of handicraft industry,—fewer than the latter has with factory industry" {80}. Both factory industry and the 1st subgroup of "kustars" belong to commodity production, which does not exist in the 2nd subgroup. Similarly strictly one must distinguish the 3rd subgroup, kustars working for merchants (and manufacturers), which are essentially different from the "kustars" of the first two subgroups. One cannot but wish that all researchers of the so-called "handicraft" industry would strictly maintain this division and use precise political-economic terms instead of arbitrarily reading meaning into colloquial terms.

Let us present data on the distribution of "kustars" by groups and subgroups:

Before drawing conclusions from these data, let us recall that the city of Kungur entered Group II, containing thus mixed data on rural and urban industrialists. We see from the table that agriculturalists (Group I), while predominating significantly in the number of rural industrialists and craftsmen, are more backward in the development of industrial forms than non-agriculturalists (Group II). Among agriculturalists, primitive craft is far more developed compared with production for the market. Greater development of capitalism among non-agriculturalists is expressed in a larger percentage of wage workers, establishments with wage workers, and kustars working for merchants. We may conclude, therefore, that connection with agriculture retards the more backward forms of industry, and conversely, that the development of capitalism in industry leads to a break with agriculture. Unfortunately, we do not have precise information on this subject and must content ourselves with such leading indications. For instance, we do not learn from the "Essay" how the rural population of Perm province is generally distributed between agriculturalists and the landless, and therefore cannot compare in which of these categories industries are more strongly developed. The extremely interesting question of industrial districts (the researchers had the most precise data on this, about each settlement separately) has also been neglected—the concentration of industrialists in non-agricultural, factory, and in general commercial-industrial settlements, the centers of each branch of industry, the spread of industries from these centers to surrounding settlements. If we add to this that household data on the time of origin of establishments (about which below, § III) made it possible to determine the character of the development of industries—i.e., whether they spread from centers to surrounding settlements or vice versa, whether they spread more strongly among agriculturalists or among non-agriculturalists, etc.—then we cannot but regret the insufficient elaboration of the data. All that we can obtain on this question are data on the placement of industries by districts. To acquaint the reader with this information, we shall use the division of districts into groups proposed in the "Essay" (p. 31): 1) "districts with the highest percentage of kustars working for the market, and at the same time with a relatively high level of development of handicraft industry"—5 districts; 2) "districts with a relatively weak degree of development of handicraft industries, but with a predominating number of kustars working for the market"—5 districts; and 3) "districts also with a low level of development of handicraft industry, but in which kustars working on customer orders often predominate"—2 districts. Bringing together the most important data by these groups of districts, we obtain the following table:

1) In the 1st group are Shadrinsky, Kungursky, Krasnoufimsky, Yekaterinburgsky, and Osinsky districts; in the 2nd—Verkhotursky, Permsky, Irbitsky, Okhanksy, and Cherdynsky; in the 3rd—Solikamsky and Kamyshlovsky.

2) We call "dependent" kustars: a) wage workers and b) family members working for merchants.

3) The number of kustars here is not the same as that presented above, because the district figures in the "Essay" (pp. 30–31) differ from the totals of the table placed in the appendix.

This table gives us the following interesting conclusions: the more developed rural industry is in a group of districts, the 1) smaller the percentage of rural craftsmen—i.e., the more craft is displaced by commodity production; 2) the larger the percentage of kustars belonging to the non-agricultural population; 3) the stronger capitalist relations develop, the larger the percentage of dependent kustars. In the third group of districts rural craftsmen predominate (77.7% of all kustars); alongside this, agriculturalists predominate here (only 5.7% non-agriculturalists) and capitalism is developed insignificantly: only 7.2% wage workers and 2.7% family-member kustars working for merchants, i.e., in all 9.9% dependent kustars. In the second group of districts, by contrast, commodity production predominates, which already displaces craft: only 32.5% craftsmen. The percentage of kustar-agriculturalists falls from 94.3% to 66.2%; the percentage of wage workers increases more than fourfold: from 7.2% to 32.1%; the percentage of family members working for merchants also increases, though not so significantly, so that the total percentage of dependent kustars is 38.4%—almost 2/3 of the total number. Finally, in the first group of districts craft is displaced even more by commodity production, occupying only 1/5 of the total number of "kustars" (21.8%), and alongside this the number of non-agricultural industrialists rises to 42.1%; the percentage of wage workers somewhat declines (from 32.1% to 26%), but in enormous proportions the percentage of family members dependent on merchants increases—namely from 6.3% to 27.4%—so that in all dependent kustars comprise more than half—53.4%. The district with the largest (absolutely and relatively) number of "kustars" proves to be the district with the largest development of capitalism: the growth of commodity production displaces craft to the background, leads to the development of capitalism, and to the transition of industry into the hands of non-agriculturalists, i.e., to the separation of industry from agriculture (or perhaps to the concentration of industries in the non-agricultural population). The reader may wonder whether it is correct to consider capitalism more developed in the first group of districts, where there are fewer wage workers than in the second, but more working for merchants. Work at home, one might object, is the lower form of capitalism. We shall see, however, below, that many of these merchants are manufacturers, owners of large capitalist establishments. Work at home appears here as an adjunct to the factory, signifying greater concentration of production and capital (200–500, up to a thousand or more people work for some merchants), greater division of labor, and being thus a more advanced form of capitalism in terms of development. This form relates to the small workshop of the proprietor with wage workers as capitalist manufacture relates to capitalist simple cooperation.

The data presented are sufficient to refute the attempts of the compilers of the "Essay" to fundamentally counterpose "the kustar form of production" to "capitalism,"—an argument repeating the traditional prejudices of all Russian Narodniks with Messrs. V. V. and N.—ov at their head. The "fundamental difference" between these two forms, the Perm Narodniks place in the fact that in the first "labor possesses the instruments and materials of production and at the same time all the results of labor in the form of products" (p. 3). We can now state with complete definiteness that this is false. Even if we include craftsmen in the number of kustars, the great majority of "kustars" still does not fit these conditions: first, wage workers do not fit, yet they comprise 25.3%; second, family members working for merchants do not fit, because neither the materials of production nor the results of their labor belong to them, and they receive only piece-rate payment; such comprise 20.8%; third, family members of the 1st and 2nd subgroups holding wage workers do not fit, because "results" do not belong only to their own labor. Such probably comprise about 10% (of 6,645 establishments of the 1st and 2nd subgroups, 1,691, i.e., 25.4%, hold wage workers; in 1,691 establishments, probably no fewer than 2,000 family members). In total thus 25.3% + 20.8% + 10% = 56.1% of "kustars," i.e., more than half do not fit these conditions. In other words, even in such a remote and backward in economic terms province as Perm, already now "the kustar" predominates as either hiring himself out for wages, or hiring others, or exploiting others or being exploited. But it is far more correct for such a calculation to exclude craft and take only commodity production. Craft is such an archaic form of industry that even among domestic Narodniks, who have repeatedly declared that backwardness is Russia's blessing (à la {81} Messrs. V. V., Yuzhakov and Co.), there was not a person who openly and directly dared defend it and represent it as a "pledge" of their ideals. In Perm province craft is still very developed, relatively to central Russia: it is sufficient to refer to such an industry as blue-dyeing (or dyeing). This is exclusively craft dyeing of peasants' homespun fabrics, which in less remote parts of Russia long ago gave way to factory printed cotton. But even in Perm province craft has been pushed far into the background: even in rural industry only 29.5%, i.e., less than a third, belong to craftsmen. Excluding craftsmen, we obtain 14,401 working for the market; of them 29.3% are wage workers, plus 29.5% of family members working for merchants, i.e., 58.8% dependent "kustars," plus 7–8 percent of proprietors with wage workers, i.e., in all about 66%, two-thirds of "kustars," bearing two fundamental similarities with, rather than differences from capitalism, namely: first, they are all commodity producers, and capitalism is only developed to the end commodity economy; second, the majority of them stand in relations of purchase and sale of labor power characteristic of capitalism. The compilers of the "Essay" strive to convince the reader that wage labor in "kustar" production has special significance and is explained, supposedly, by "respectable" reasons; we shall examine these assurances in their place (§ VII) and the examples they adduce. Here it is sufficient to state that where commodity production is dominant and wage labor is used not accidentally but systematically, all the marks of capitalism are present. One may speak of its underdevelopment, its embryonic nature, its special forms, but to posit the "fundamental difference" between what in reality displays fundamental similarity means to distort reality.

Let us note, incidentally, one more distortion. On page 5 of the "Essay" it is stated that "the kustar's products… are prepared from materials acquired principally on the spot itself." On precisely this point there are data in the "Essay" for verification, namely the comparison of how kustars processing animal products are distributed throughout the districts of the province, relative to livestock and agricultural products; kustars processing vegetable products, relative to the distribution of forests; kustars processing metals, relative to the distribution of iron and steel extracted in the province. It turns out from this comparison that in processing animal products in three districts 68.9% of kustars of this type are concentrated, while the number of livestock in these same districts is only 25.1%, and the area sown only 29.5%, i.e., it turns out to be exactly the opposite, and in the "Essay" it is immediately stated that "the high degree of development of industries based on the processing of animal products is ensured principally by imported raw materials, for instance, in Kungursky and Yekaterinburgsky districts—raw hides processed by local tanneries and kustar tanneries, from which precisely the material for boot-making is obtained—the main of the handicraft industries of these districts" (pp. 24–25). Kustarnichestvo is based here, therefore, not only on the large turnovers of local capitalists engaged in hide trade, but on the acquisition from manufacturers of semifinished product—i.e., kustarnichestvo proved to be a result, an adjunct of developed commodity circulation and capitalist tannery establishments. "In Shadrinsky district the imported raw material is wool, providing material for the district's main industry—felt-boot manufacture." Further, in processing vegetable products 61.3% of kustars are concentrated in 4 districts. Meanwhile in these same 4 districts there is altogether only 20.7% of the total forest area in the province. On the contrary, in 2 districts in which 51.7% of the forest is concentrated, there is altogether 2.6% of kustars processing vegetable products (p. 25), i.e., here too it turns out to be exactly the opposite, and here the "Essay" states that the raw material is imported (p. 26) {82}. We observe, therefore, a most interesting fact: the development of handicraft industries is preceded by (being a condition of this development) commodity circulation that has already sunk deep roots. This circumstance is very important because, first, it indicates how long ago commodity economy became established, of which kustarnichestvo is merely one member, and how absurd it therefore is to depict our handicraft industry as some kind of tabula rasa {83} which supposedly "may" still go various ways. The researchers report, for instance, that Perm "handicraft industry continues to reflect the influence of those routes of communication which determined the commercial-industrial physiognomy of the region not only in the pre-railroad but even in the pre-reform era" (p. 39). Indeed, the city of Kungur was a node of communication routes in the pre-Urals: through it runs the Siberian highway, connecting Kungur with Yekaterinburg, and by branches with Shadrinsk; through Kungur also runs another commercial highway—the Goroblagodatsk, connecting Kungur with Osa. Finally, the Birsk highway connects Kungur with Krasnoufimsk. "Thus, we see that the handicraft industry of the province concentrated in districts determined by nodes of communication: in the pre-Urals—in Kungursky, Krasnoufimsky, and Osinsky districts; and in the trans-Urals—in Yekaterinburgsky and Shadrinsky districts" (p. 39). Recall to the reader that precisely these 5 districts constitute the first group by development of handicraft industry and that 70% of the total number of kustars are concentrated in them. Second, this circumstance indicates to us that the "organization of exchange" in handicraft industry, about which kustar advocates speak so glibly, is in reality already created and created by none other than all-Russian commerce. Below we shall see more confirmation of this. Only in the third category of kustars (processing metals) does correspondence appear in the distribution of raw material extraction and its processing by kustars: in 4 districts in which 70.6% of iron and steel are extracted, 70% of kustars of this category are concentrated. But here the raw material is already itself the product of large-scale mining industry, which has, as we shall see, "its own views" on the "kustar."

## II. The "Kustar" and Wage Labor

Let us turn to the exposition of data on wage labor in the handicraft industries of Perm province. Without repeating the absolute figures presented above, we shall confine ourselves to indicating the most interesting percentage relationships:

We see, therefore, that the percentage of wage workers is greater among non-agriculturalists than among agriculturalists, and that this difference depends principally on the 2nd subgroup: among craftsman-agriculturalists the percentage of wage workers is 14.1%, while among non-agriculturalists it is 29.3%, i.e., more than twice as large. For the remaining two subgroups the percentage of wage workers is only slightly higher in Group II compared to Group I. It was already noted that this phenomenon is a result of the greater underdevelopment of capitalism in the agricultural population. The Perm Narodniks, like all other Narodniks, naturally declare this an advantage of agriculturalists. Without entering here into dispute on the general question whether the underdevelopment and backwardness of given socio-economic relations may be considered an advantage, we shall note only that from the data presented below it will be evident that this advantage of agriculturalists consists in receiving low wages.

It is interesting to note that the difference between groups in the use of wage labor proves to be smaller than the difference between subgroups within a single group. In other words, the economic structure of industry (craftsmen – commodity producers – workers for merchants) influences the degree of wage labor use more strongly than connection with agriculture or the absence of such connection. For instance, the small commodity producer-agriculturalist more closely resembles the small commodity producer-non-agriculturalist than he resembles the agriculturalist-craftsman. The percentage of wage workers in the 1st subgroup is 29.4% for Group I and 31.2% for Group II, whereas in the 2nd subgroup of Group I it is only 14.1%. Similarly, the agriculturalist working for a merchant more closely resembles the non-agriculturalist working for a merchant (23.2% and 27.4% wage workers) than he resembles the agriculturalist-craftsman. This indicates to us how the general dominance of commodity-capitalist relations in the country nivels out the agriculturalist and non-agriculturalist participating in industry. Data on the incomes of kustars will indicate this leveling even more clearly. The 2nd subgroup is, as already noted, an exception; but if instead of data on the percentage of wage workers we take data on the number of wage workers per establishment on average, we shall see that agriculturalist-craftsmen stand closer to non-agriculturalist craftsmen (0.23 and 0.43 wage workers per establishment) than to agriculturalists of other subgroups. The average composition of one establishment among craftsmen in both groups is almost identical (1.7 and 1.8 persons per establishment), whereas by subgroups within each group this composition fluctuates very greatly (I: 2.6 and 1.7; II: 2.5 and 1.8).

Data on the average composition of establishments in each subgroup also indicate the interesting fact that among craftsmen of both groups this composition is the smallest: 1.7 and 1.8 workers per workshop. Among craftsmen, therefore, the most fragmented production predominates, the greatest separateness of individual producers, the least application of cooperation in production. First place in this respect is occupied in both groups by the first subgroups, i.e., proprietors working for free sale. The composition of the workshop here is greatest (2.6 and 2.5 persons); multi-family kustars are most numerous here (with 3 or more family workers 20.3% and 18.5%; small exception the 3rd subgroup of Group I with 20.9%); alongside this wage labor is used most extensively (0.75 and 0.78 workers per workshop); large establishments are most numerous (2.0% and 1.3% of establishments with 6 or more wage workers). Consequently, cooperation in production is applied here in the most extensive dimensions, and this is achieved through the greatest use of wage labor combined with the greatest family composition (1.8 and 1.7 family workers per establishment; small exception the 3rd subgroup of Group I with 1.9 persons).

This last circumstance leads us to a most important question concerning the interrelation of family and wage labor among "kustars," compelling us to doubt the correctness of the dominant Narodnist doctrines that wage labor in kustar production merely "supplements" family labor. The Perm Narodniks support this opinion, arguing on page 55 that "the identification of the interests of kustarnichestvo and kulakism" is refuted by the fact that the most prosperous kustars (1st subgroup) have the largest family composition, whereas "if the kustar were inclined only toward profit, the sole impulse of kulakism, and not toward the strengthening and development of his production, utilizing all the forces of his family, then we would be justified in expecting in this subgroup the smallest percentage determining the number of family members giving their labor to production" (?!). Strange conclusion! How can one draw conclusions about the role of "personal labor participation" (p. 55) without touching on data concerning wage labor? If the prosperity of multi-family kustars did not express kulak tendencies, then we would see among them the smallest percentage of wage workers, the smallest percentage of establishments with wage workers, the smallest percentage of establishments with a large number of workers (more than five), the smallest number of workers per establishment on average. In reality, the most prosperous kustars (1st subgroup) occupy first place in all these respects, not last, and this combined with the largest family composition and family workers, with the largest percentage of kustars with 3 or more family workers! Clearly, the facts speak to precisely the opposite of what the Narodnist wishes to impose on them: the kustar strives precisely for profit through kulakism; he uses great prosperity (one of whose conditions is multi-family status) for greater use of wage labor. Being placed better than other kustars with respect to the number of family workers, he uses this to displace the rest, resorting to the greatest hiring of workers. "Family cooperation," about which Messrs. V. V. and other Narodniks so fondly love to speak (cf. "Kustar. Prom.," I, p. 14), is a guarantee of the development of capitalist cooperation. This will seem, of course, a paradox to the reader accustomed to Narodnist prejudices, but it is a fact. To have precise data on this question, one would need to know not only the distribution of establishments by number of family and by number of wage workers (which is given in the "Essay"), but also the combination of family and wage labor. The household data provided full opportunity to conduct such a combination, to calculate the number of establishments with 1, 2, etc. wage workers in each category of establishments by number of family workers. Unfortunately, this was not done. To fill in somewhat this gap, let us turn to the aforementioned work: "Kustar. Prom. etc." Here are presented precisely combination tables of establishments by number of family and wage workers. Tables are given for 5 industries, covering in all 749 establishments with 1,945 workers (cit. work, I, pp. 59, 78, 160; III, pp. 87 and 109). To analyze these data on our question of interest concerning the interrelation of family and wage labor, we must divide all establishments into groups by total number of workers (for it is precisely the total number of workers that shows the size of the workshop and the degree of application of cooperation in production) and determine the role of family and wage labor in each group. We take 4 groups: 1) establishments with 1 worker; 2) with 2–4 workers; 3) with 5–9 workers; 4) with 10 or more workers. Such a division by total number of workers is all the more necessary because establishments with, for instance, 1 worker and with 10 obviously represent entirely different economic types; combining them together and drawing "averages" would be entirely absurd, as we shall see below from the "Essay" data. The indicated grouping gives such data:

Thus these detailed data entirely confirm the position advanced above, paradoxical at first glance: the larger the size of the establishment by total number of workers, the more family workers per 1 establishment, the wider, therefore, "family cooperation," but at the same time capitalist cooperation expands and expands incomparably more rapidly. More prosperous kustars, despite possessing a larger number of family workers, still hire many wage workers: "family cooperation" is a guarantee and foundation of capitalist cooperation.

Let us look at data from the 1894/95 census on family and wage labor. By number of family workers establishments are distributed thus:

%

Establishments with 0 family workers 97 1.1

» » 1 » » 4,787 53.2

» » 2 » » 2,770 30.8

» » 3 » » 898 10.0

» » 4 » » 279 3.1

» » 5 or more » » 160 1.8

Total 8,991 100

It should be noted here that solitaries predominate: they comprise more than half. Even if we granted that all establishments combining family and wage labor have no more than one family worker, it would still turn out that there are 2½ thousand complete solitaries. These are representatives of the most fragmented producers, representatives of the greatest separation of small workshops—a separation characteristic in general of the lauded "people's production." Let us look at the opposite pole, at the largest workshops:

Number of wage workers [176]

Thus the "small" establishments of kustars sometimes reach impressive proportions: in 85 of the largest establishments almost a quarter of the total number of wage workers are concentrated; on average one such establishment has 14.6 workers. These are already manufacturers, owners of capitalist establishments [177]. Cooperation on capitalist lines finds solid application here: with 15 workers per establishment division of labor in more or less significant dimensions is possible, greater economy is achieved in premises and instruments with a richer and more varied quantity of them. Procurement of raw materials and sale of product necessarily occur here in large quantities, which significantly reduces the cost of raw materials, transportation expenses, facilitates sales, makes possible regular commercial relations. Below, when presenting information on incomes, we shall see confirmation of this by the 1894/95 census. Here it is sufficient to point to these generally known theoretical propositions. It is understandable from this that both the technical and economic physiognomy of such establishments radically differs from the workshops of solitaries, and one cannot but marvel that Perm statisticians nonetheless decided to combine them together and draw general "averages." Already a priori [178] one can say that such averages will be completely fictitious and that the elaboration of household data necessarily should have, apart from the division of kustars into groups and subgroups, led to their division into categories by number of workers in the establishment (both family and wage together). Without such division it is inconceivable to obtain precise data either on incomes, or on the conditions of purchasing raw materials and selling products, or on production technique, or on the position of wage workers relative to solitaries, or on the relationship between large and small workshops—and all of these are the most important questions in studying the economics of "kustarnichestvo." The Perm researchers naturally attempt to diminish the significance of capitalist workshops. If there are establishments with 5 or more family workers